THE EARL OF CARNARVONrose to call attention to the inadequate and unsatisfactory nature of supervision exercised over convicts on ticket-of-leave and habitual criminals, and to inquire, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any Bill to amend the Habitual Criminals Act of 1869? He would in the first place remark, in reference to his Question, that measures were not unfrequently passed through the Legislature with so much haste and so little consideration, that they were found to contain ambiguties and complications which rendered action upon them extremely difficult. This was the case with the Act of 1869, for some of its clauses were full of contradictions and defects. Some referred to the wrong schedules, and some misdated previous statutes to which reference had to be made, and some referred to Acts that had been repealed; others were expressed in terms so ambiguous that it was difficult to assign any distinct meaning to them. In consequence, the Courts had pronounced some of its provisions to be absolutely unworkable. On his calling attention to this matter last year, his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) admitted the existence of these defects, and promised that an amending Bill should be introduced. A similar assurance was subsequently given in the other House; but no such measure had yet been brought forward. He would now ask whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce an amending Bill during the present Session? With regard to the super- 1679 vision of criminals, under the present system the supervision was a complete nullity—the law was not adequate for the purpose for which it was intended. Their Lordships would remember that under the Act of 1864 every criminal at large on a ticket-of-leave was required to report himself to the police once a month. A prejudice, unfortunately, arose against this provision, it being thought to interfere with a man's power of finding or retaining employment; and, accordingly, though the Act of 1869 dealt with another and distinct class of offenders, a clause was introduced—he believed in the other House—repealing that section. The ticket-of-leave holder was now required only to report himself to the police in the event of his changing his residence within the police district. Many of these districts, however—especially in the densely populated Northern and Midland counties—were so extensive that this provision had become nugatory, no report, as a matter of fact, being made, and the ticket-of-leave men being wholly free from supervision. Under the Act of 1869 a person twice convicted of felony incurred certain disabilities and became liable to police supervision. The procedure adopted was that within seven days of his discharge the governor of the gaol reported to the registrar's office in London that such a person would be discharged—adding, if he knew it, the place whither he was going. The convict, however, was under no compulsion to name the place at all, or to give correct information, and in many cases he refused to give any, so that in The Police Gazette, the column for residence was left blank, all pretence of supervision being consequently abandoned. Thus supervision, which was the very essence of the Act, was necessarily nullified. A Return, ordered by the House of Commons in 1866, contained the opinions of various chief constables and police authorities on the old system of monthly reporting, of which they were almost without exception in favour; and the late Sir Richard Mayne, though originally opposed to it, subsequently stated that it had not in any case, as far as was known or believed, prevented a man from obtaining employment or led to the loss of employment. In Ireland, it also worked satisfactorily, and commanded the approval of many competent authorities. But the Act of 1869, unfortu- 1680 nately, set it aside, both in England and in Ireland. When criminals refused to disclose the localities to which they were going, as it was natural they should do, the police were bound to make good the defect in the law as well as they could, the result being that a system of espionage was generated. He held in his hand a large number of letters from the police authorities of the principal towns and counties, who, in reply to inquiries, regretted the repeal of the clause in the Act of 1864, and stated that it was almost impracticable to give a return of the residences of discharged criminals. Liverpool, indeed, was an exception; a great deal of time and expense having been devoted there to the establishment of an office for the registration of criminals. This scheme was so perfect that during the last 12 months only two cases escaped registration, the criminal being traced from place to place; but this organization was too expensive and elaborate for general adoption, and it was desirable that the provision of the Act of 1864 should be revived. The intention, at that time, was that the agency and co-operation of the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society should be obtained—and even now this method had not been wholly abandoned, its advantage being that the holder of the ticket-of-leave had perfect confidence in the persons with whom he was dealing, and that no hardship was involved in the monthly report. People were too much inclined to forget that transportation had entirely ceased, and that we were exposed to the danger of a concentration of criminals in the large towns, and sometimes in the rural districts; while he doubted whether our system of punishment was adequate to the necessities of the case. He feared that the registration office in London had not performed the work which it was expected to carry on; and he always thought it an unfortunate step to place it in the hands of the Chief Commissioner of Police, who had plenty of other duties on his hands. It would have been far wiser to assign the duty to a special officer. As regarded punishments, the Government ought seriously to consider whether the Act passed in 1869, with such great hopes of success, was working satisfactorily. He had never doubted the soundness of the principle on which it was founded, but justice had not been done to it. It had 1681 been worked negligently and indifferently, the number of prison Inspectors being insufficient to insure its proper administration. He feared that unless something was done, a general breakdown might ensue; and that difficulties might arise which, though not very serious in times of peace and order, might be serious, if they occurred under unfavourable circumstances.
THE EARL OF MORLEYadmitted that many discrepancies and inaccuracies existed in the Act of 1869, and that it had proved impracticable to carry some of its provisions into effect. It was with extreme regret that the Government were unable, owing to the press of public business, to introduce an amending Bill last Session; but he was glad to inform their Lordships that such a measure had been framed and was almost ready, so that he hoped it would shortly be introduced in this or the other House. With regard to the supervision of convicts, the subject was at present engaging the attention of the Home Secretary. He admitted that the existing system was not altogether satisfactory, but it was doubtful whether it would be expedient to revert to the system of monthly reports. It was true many gentlemen peculiarly qualified to give an opinion were in favour of it; but there was a feeling in 1864, that it tended to interfere with the ticket-of-leave man's obtaining an honest livelihood. The Act of 1864 left it to the discretion of the Secretary of State to attach such a condition to a licence or not. He thought there was a good deal of force in the objections urged against the system of monthly reporting. It was very difficult to steer between too much supervision, which prevented a convict from getting employment, and too little, which left the discharged convict unlimited freedom; and there might, perhaps, be devised some expedient to meet the case, other than a monthly report—such as more stringent regulations as to reporting a change of residence within a district, or from one district to another. In view of the immense number of malefactors at large, this question was one of great importance. As to habitual criminals, the Home Secretary was considering whether it was desirable to place them under the same kind of supervision as the ticket-of-leave men. 1682 The noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) might rest assured that the opinions of the best authorities would be obtained, and that the points to which he had called attention, particularly the supervision of convicts at large, were under careful consideration.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDhoped that the measure promised by the noble Earl would speedily be introduced, so that it might not share the fate of its predecessor by being sent up to their Lordships too late for proper consideration. He hoped also that it would not be, as in another case, when the inquiry was conducted by one House, and the legislation initiated in another. He was astonished to hear the noble Earl admit that the Government could not find leisure during the Session of 1870 to bring forward a remedy for the inaccuracies which had crept into the Act of 1869. He agreed with his noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) as to the desirability of a prompt and thorough investigation into the operation of the Act of 1869, and into the supervision of criminals generally. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Morley) said there was great difficulty in steering clear of too much supervision and too little; but he feared the result was that at present there was no supervision at all, for in the Return alluded to by his noble Friend, "Not Known" appeared, in the great majority of cases, in the column devoted to the place of residence. He feared that the remedy which had been suggested would be equally inoperative, and that, without some vigorous legislative action, that supervision which, owing to the abolition of transportation was so necessary, would not be effected. As the time of the other House was likely to be fully engrossed with other matters, he would suggest that the Bill should originate in their Lordships' House.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYhoped the Government would pause before reverting to the system of monthly reports. He would point out that common lodging-houses were the great receptacles of thieves, and he believed that if the Home Secretary directed the police to rout them out, and prevent the congregating of criminals in them, more would be done to check crime than by all the other sections of the Act put together. Such nurseries of vice and crime should be under the strictest supervision. They 1683 should be looked to not occasionally but systematically—indeed, nearly every week.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the defects of the Act of 1869 were attributable to the fact that though the measure was introduced here early in the Session, and was sent down in good time to the Commons, it only came back to their Lordships at the close of the Session. The Commons Amendments were considered on the day but one before the Prorogation, and were accepted by their Lordships on the assurance of the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) that they were all right. He hoped the same thing would not occur again. This was the very class of Bills that required more vigilance than any other.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he had not had an opportunity of learning much as to the working of this Act, but he had been assured that the powers given to the police of exercising strict supervision over the assemblage of criminals in public houses had been extremely useful, and had proved one of the most valuable portions of the measure. He understood that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department was not quite satisfied with the stringency of the regulations with respect to criminals reporting themselves, and was desirous of making them more effective. He thought the system of requiring criminals to report themselves only when changing their places of abode was preferable to requiring them to report themselves monthly. The latter might frequently occasion great hardship.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that when Bills were sent up to their Lordships' House at so late a period of the Session that it was impossible to consider them with due care, they must either be rejected altogether or passed with all defects and errors.
EARL GREYthought this was just another illustration of the necessity for improving the relations between the two branches of the Legislature, which had long been most unsatisfactory. Such important measures as the one under review should undergo critical examination by some competent lawyers before they were submitted to either House.
§ House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.